steve:"Mike"'s ID notion doesn't involve front loading, does it? If so, it will be worse than even CSI and IC and the EF.

Well, Mike, I guess you're in an even worse status than all the other IDists. So what would be the point of changing the label?

Alan Fox: If I understand front loading at all (please correct any misapprehension), the information necessary to produce speciation is already present from being pre-loaded and waiting for the appropriate moment to kick in.

I don't think Mike is prepared to say how far front-loading can go. I think he suspects it can get us at least to multi-cellularity.

John Davison, front- loader and saltationist par excellence claims "the environment had nothing to do with it". Forgive me, but however inadequate the theory of evolution may appear, how is front-loading any more parsimonious?

I think Mike believes that a designer, knowing that Darwinian evolution is inevitable, could exploit it by front-loading designs into the first cells that would eventually be actualized by evolution.

I'll bet all the money in the bank of America that "steve" doesn't even understand any of those topics.

It's a bet that might win, as noöne I meet here has heard of any form of ID, let alone front loading. It really does seem a parochial concept viewed from the non-Anglo-Saxon world.

Modern evolutionary theory proposes that selection, such as created by geographical and temporal isolation, (continental drift, island hopping, cataclysmic events such as meteor strikes etc) can open new niches allowing the stream of genetic variation to be re-filtered and produce new species adapted to these new niches.

If I understand front loading at all (please correct any misapprehension), the information necessary to produce speciation is already present from being pre-loaded and waiting for the appropriate moment to kick in. John Davison, front- loader and saltationist par excellence claims "the environment had nothing to do with it". Forgive me, but however inadequate the theory of evolution may appear, how is front-loading any more parsimonious?

I had a reply from John Moore:

Hi Alan:
Thanks for the e-mail. I was not aware of the website nor the person in question.

But it's always fun to have one's worked Fisked on a website.

Cheers.

John Moore
Host of The John Moore Show Weekdays 4-7PM
NewsTalk 1010 CFRB Toronto
2 St-Clair Ave West, 2nd Floor
Toronto, Ontario, M4V 1L6
jmoore@*******.com

One of the "Maclean's 50" http://www.macleans.ca

This appears to confirm that Moore was unaware of Mike or his ideas when he wrote his piece criticizing ID in the National Post.Link to original thread

How so?

I'll bet all the money in the bank of America that "steve" doesn't even understand any of those topics.

steve: "Mike"'s ID notion doesn't involve front loading, does it? If so, it will be worse than even CSI and IC and the EF.

How so?

FLAVORS (Front Loading Aids Vagaries Of Religion and Science)
FLAG (Front Loaded Anatomy Generator)

"Mike"'s ID notion doesn't involve front loading, does it? If so, it will be worse than even CSI and IC and the EF.

Sorry, but I didn't have anything else to do this morning.

"Discovery Institute’s persistent stress on humans being made in the image of God…"

-William Dembski

http://www.uncommondescent.com...

As long as it's not used to try to sneak creationism into science classrooms, it wouldn't be a trojan horse. You do need another term though, because ID means Dembski, Behe, and the Discovery Institute. You would also want a new term to distinguish yourself from the ideas of CSI, IC, and the EF, which have failed to create a useful paradigm for what Kuhn called 'normal science', and therefore fail as a scientific revolution.